Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sadrik" data-source="post: 4808595" data-attributes="member: 14506">Hmm, by the raw you may be right. Another striker might be better than a full on cleric. My thought though is that the strikers will inevitably take damage and having a cleric their to help with healing surges, might allow the group to adventure longer during the day without sacrificing that much potential damage. Not to mention that a cleric can act as a striker vs. undead... YmmvIn this case though the damage values are so disparate between my poor wizard and the rogue he had to fight in 1v1 combat that it was no contest. It also hurt that the rogues REF was actually higher than his AC. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />In 1e/2e/3e the measure of a character's *combat* potential was either in how much damage he could do in knocking out monsters or in how you were able to improve the party through buffs/debuffs. The wizard does neither of these two things very well. Poor weapons, armor, HP, and surges are very difficult to deal with when you have virtually no offense to go with it. Not to mention that most of their effects target REF which is generally the most difficult defense to hit. It is really too bad, I love wizards always have since 1e. I am going to mess with the hybrid rules and see if I can get one to be worth its salt. If I cannot get a striker/wizard hybrid to work I am going to throw the towel in on them.</blockquote>

Verification